You should be able to get a LN 200/2 for around $4700 these days. Anyway, the 200/2 is a specialty tool. If you need it, you need it. If not, it won't sound like a good value to you. The 200/2 is one of my favorites.
David Frost wrote:
Ok thnx.....I thought about going with 85 f/1.2L II, 135 f/2L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
IMHO a better decision and far more useable. I had a 200 f/1.8 for a while, and though it was spectacular it was not nearly as practical as a shooting tool. I sold it, but still own the lenses you list above. The 85L and 135L can give that "magic" similar to the 200, but in a more compact and useable package. The 70-200 is amazingly sharp and more importantly, flexible for a lot of shooting situations.
David Frost wrote:
Ok thnx.....I thought about going with 85 f/1.2L II, 135 f/2L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Those three would be awesome but if it was me, I would go 35L, 85Lii, and the 70-200Lii. I love the 135L and it's a great bargain but I would do the 35L to give me a wider choice.
David Frost wrote:
Ok thnx.....I thought about going with 85 f/1.2L II, 135 f/2L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Great choice but as someone else mentioned you might want to check out 35L because it will give you more versatility with your lens kit. There are soo many darn options it gets tiring trying to figure out, best way is to try them out and see what FL you like best. There will be others who will suggest the 24L or 50L, all great lenses of course.
I love my 200 1.8 you may want to look at one of those. Also I suggest you rent the gear you are considering and try it out before deciding. You may decide you like 24 and 50 better than 35 and 85. Or go 24-70 II, 50L and 200 1.8L really awesome combo.
I agree with Art, wholeheartedly. It's only a stop, but it's a whole different world in terms of size, weight, heft, public attention...and then the look of the image. The f/2 really is eye-catching when employed a certain way.
That being said, the 70-200 f/2.8 II is probably one of the most competent zooms yet produced. Costs aside, it's really "the embarrassment of riches", as applies to consumer choice.
artsupreme wrote:
...the 200/2 is a specialty tool. If you need it, you need it. If not, it won't sound like a good value to you. The 200/2 is one of my favorites.
A few weeks ago I did a shooting with a borrowed 200 f/2L. An incredible lens with its own style. Nevertheless it is heavy and not so flexible as a Zoom lens and with the new 70-200 2.8/L II the image quality is quite close so that I decided to go with the zoom in future.
If money were no object I'd certainly want to own a 200 f/2, but the 70-200 is such a fine lens it's really hard to justify the extra $3K spend. Bokeh on the zoom is pretty nice IMO and can certainly melt the background very nicely, even though certainly not as well as the prime.
I have 35/1.4, 85/1.2 II, 100/2, 100/2.8 Macro IS, 70-200/2.8 IS II, 200/2. The transmission difference between 70mm and 200mm on the zoom bothers me at times, it's almost 2/10 of a stop. I am very comfortable shooting both lenses wide open. You really don't have to stop down for portraits except you want more DOF. I am more confident with the prime for moving subjects, even though it's not a night and day difference for AF speed between them. The bokeh on the prime is smoother (for $4k more...), although it could be hard to tell the difference except you are comparing the shots side by side. Furthermore, the prime is better in terms of distortion and edge to edge sharpness, again, you won't be able to tell except shooting a grid target. But I'd say get the prime-it will outgun everyone in the room.
1Ds Mark II, 200mm f/2.0 1/8s ISO 800
100% Adobe ACR 6.4 all sharpening set to zero:
1Ds Mark II, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II @ 200mm f/2.8 1/200s ISO 200
Here's a poorly done comparison with the 200mm and 85mm, I might have AF and panned the 85mm shot. Since I was farther away from the model, with the 200mm, it's more forgiving to achieve dead on focus while shooting full body.
(L) 1Ds Mark II, 200mm f/2.0 1/200s ISO 200
(R) 1Ds Mark II, 85mm f/1.2 @ f/2.0 1/250s ISO 200
it's really is depend on how much bokeh you really like and $$$
i own 85II,70-200II and 200f2. and this is what i found in the test i made. (sorry i could find the images from that test to show you)
I took all 3 with the same frame view wide open, the 70-200 VS 200 isnt much of a competition in bokeh department although it's only 1 stop. we can tolerate sharpeness/contrast/saturation from the 70-200is VS 200L since huge $$$ different.
the 85L & 200L give very similar bokeh (slight advantage to 200L cuz it's more like creamy blur than circular look from 85L and it'll be even more different if the bckg is further and with subject is farther ). the only downsize from bokeh of 85L is... it's nerve breaking to shoot at F1.2. the 200L is more like... Shooting at F1.2 (85) but nail everyshot with ease and breath.
To me, that's what worth those extra $$$.
I would recommend to buy both the 200L and 70-200II. if you decide one isnt your cup of tea. Sell it. (i doubt you'll lose much money)
I have owned the 200 2.0 and sold it, currently own the 70-200 2.8 IS II. When I owned the 200 2.0 I have the version 1 of the 70-200 2.8 IS. There was a big difference in image quality. The 200 2.0 is the finest lens I have ever used, took amazing portraits, worked well with a 1.4 tc for some small field soccer. I loved it, but found it to be so big and heavy that I would grab the 135L or 85 1.2L for portraits more often. When I bought the 70-200 2.8 IS II it reminded me of the 200 2.0, just a stop slower and a lot smaller and lighter.
I would love to own the 200 2.0 again, but until I truly have a need for it I won't buy it. The 70-200 2.8 IS II has become my go to portrait lens, so much so that my 135L isn't getting much use anymore, and that was my go to portrait lens.
So, if you don't need the 200 2.0 I would recommend getting the 35L or 50L, 85L and 70-200 2.8 IS II.
